Zulghinlour | Wed 27-May-09 07:47 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
9792 posts
| |
|
#1894, "RE: my idea:"
|
>Basically, keep what we have in place except: > >1. Create some number of vendor mobs that sell/create sleek >a/s/b wands. Put them in the sort of magical places mentioned >elsewhere in this thread. Tower of Sorcery, Consortium, >Thar-Acacia, etc. Maybe put some in harder to reach places >and have them charge less because they're so hard to reach.
I'll be honest, when people say put something in the Tower of Sorcery, I just assume we may as well put it in Galadon. There is no risk, no difficulty at all with that.
>2. Optionally add a minimum exploration and/or observation >requirement in order for these vendor mobs to do business with >a given mage. > >3. Fix the prices so that gathering the coin necessary to >purchase a wand of type X requires "slightly" more effort than >what is needed to gather that wand using the current >exploration-based sleek system. (discussion below)
So it enables a second system based on gathering coin instead of exploring areas (which I'd argue, gathering coin is really easy).
>4. Each time a character buys a sleek wand, regardless of the >type, he has to wait a set amount of time before buying >another sleek wand. (discussion below) > >5. If you want to encourage character longevity (which may not >be a goal) then optionally allow the haggle skill to affect >how much purchased wands cost.
How exactly does this encourage character longevity?
>Point of #3: > >This makes it so that the purchase-based system is actually >utilized, but is not utilized to the exclusion of the current >exploration-based system. It retains the property that >"player knowledge" still gives an advantage, since a player >with "perfect" knowledge would be better served by not >purchasing his wands. > >However it does limit the advantage a player derives >from having "perfect knowledge", since even a 100% ignorant >player can purchase sleeks as long as he knows how to generate >gold. > >It would be essential to set the prices and "waiting period" >correctly, since if the prices are too high then this system >morphs into exactly what we have today. But if the prices are >too low and/or the waiting period too short then it becomes >"every mage has a/s/b all the time".
Honestly I think that if these things were going to be for sale, it wouldn't be all of them, and the prices would be fairly prohibitive. I think a new player who struggles searching through areas is going to have the same troubles gathering enough coins. I do think this makes the serial thief/empire player who wants to try a mage a lot easier.
>Point of #4: > >I think this one is especially interesting. At first glance >you might think that since purchasing any wand type >imposes the same waiting period, one would always want to >purchase barrier. But if a mage is only using the "purchase" >system and is always purchasing barrier then he will never >have aura or shield. Thus, the guy using the purchase >system as his only source for all three types must use them at >1/3 the rate of the guy who only wants to keep barrier on tap. > Goal: If you want the "full wand package" then you have to >use your wands sparingly. > >This "dual" system would also let mages who've found only >certain sleeks to "make up" for that by purchasing those types >they can't get via the exploration-based system.
This exists a bit, though not exactly as you describe in the current system (sleek wands reset completely different than anything else in the game). What do you think these waiting periods are?
>Some thoughts: > >1. This proposal retains the property that "player knowledge >counts for something". A player with perfect knowledge of >existing sleek locations could continue to use those locations >and ignore the purchase system entirely. He would, however, >only get a "relatively small" benefit from doing so. Also, >the ability to generate gold becomes more important. > >2. This proposal retains the property that "getting your wands >should incur some risk". Not only do you have to visit one of >a small set of wand mobs, where an enemy could lay in wait, >you also have to gather the coins or items necessary to >exchange for a wand.
I honestly don't really see a ton of risk in gathering coins, and the biggest risk is going to the purchase point. Though if I was a smart battlerager, I'd just whack the merchant so nobody could buy them (and likely I'd make the resets on the merchant a bit different, so that was a viable tactic).
>3. This proposal provides an option for veteran players who >don't want to "pore over a bunch of areas I've already been >through a thousand times". Such a player could ignore the >exploration-based sleek system entirely and just purchase his >wands. By doing so, however, he would be tying himself to a >slightly less efficient system of wand delivery (i.e. more >effort per charge). > >4. This proposal provides an option for novice players who >feel intimidated by the current exploration-based sleek >system. Such a player could just buy all his wands, assuming >he knows how to generate the necessary coin.
And that's where I see one of the problems. I think assuming they know how to generate the necessary coin.
>Potential problems: > >1. Outlander mages are screwed since they can't use coins. >One solution would be to have certain vendors accept powerful >magic items in lieu of coins. However, this creates a >perverse incentive for Outlanders to loot powerful magic items >from Pkills. It also opens the door for players to exploit >"pathological items" that happen to be high-level and >magic-flagged but are not especially hard to obtain. >Requested items would obviously be excluded from consideration >entirely.
I agree that allowing bartering for wands is going to encourage more looting. I'm curious what your definition of "powerful magic item" is.
>2. Pathological means of generating gold now become "a big >deal". If a mage figures out how to generate gold at a >pathological rate, i.e. in an exploitative way, then he >essentially has "a/s/b on a stick". This is mitigated, >however, by the fact that each wand purchase comes with a >fixed "waiting period". It would basically mean that such a >mage would buy all his barrier wands, since they require the >most effort to obtain from the exploration-based sytem and >because gold is meaningless to him, while using the >exploration-based system to get aura and shield. But...as >these gold exploits are removed, this becomes less of a >problem.
Overall, this boils down to trading exploration for coin-gathering, and I honestly don't know that it's that much better than what exists today. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
|
|
|
Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system
[View all] , Zulghinlour, Mon 25-May-09 11:52 PM
Area based.,
Semaphore,
13-Aug-09 10:39 AM, #230
RE: Area based.,
Daevryn,
13-Aug-09 10:40 AM, #231
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Jugynheim,
27-Jul-09 10:22 PM, #228
Slight addition to detect artifact?,
Habbs,
15-Jul-09 02:45 PM, #224
*Thumbs up* N/t,
Alandale (Guest),
15-Jul-09 11:00 PM, #225
That would be interesting! nt,
Dervish,
17-Jul-09 11:09 PM, #226
And another idea,
Habbs,
27-Jul-09 10:22 PM, #227
*Thumbs Down* (Wall-o-text),
Seil clavin (Guest),
11-Aug-09 09:08 PM, #229
Small request,
Kadsies (Guest),
07-Jul-09 12:28 PM, #214
It isnt that hard, ive gotten the quest @ level 37.,
Cerunnir,
07-Jul-09 02:38 PM, #215
And remember that 'k' is right next to 'l' when you loo...,
Abernytee (Guest),
08-Jul-09 09:28 AM, #219
RE: And remember that 'k' is right next to 'l' when you...,
Cerunnir,
09-Jul-09 11:09 PM, #222
So you're just not very observant? (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
07-Jul-09 01:14 PM, #216
I would live RL in brief if I could. n/t,
Kadsies (Guest),
07-Jul-09 06:40 PM, #217
Married man? -nt-,
Mek (Guest),
07-Jul-09 08:23 PM, #218
I permanently turned brief off after obs xp was introdu...,
DurNominator,
08-Jul-09 09:28 AM, #220
Instant-Fix.,
Magey (Guest),
06-Jul-09 09:18 PM, #213
RE: Instant-Fix.,
Magey (Guest),
09-Jul-09 11:09 PM, #221
I like this Idea but...,
Iza,
09-Jul-09 11:09 PM, #223
Work scrolls into the mix,
Doof (Guest),
04-Jul-09 12:40 AM, #212
Weaker alternatives,
Void,
17-Jun-09 11:27 AM, #209
One more change and you are done! txt,
SomeDude (Guest),
16-Jun-09 01:53 PM, #203
Eh.,
Daevryn,
16-Jun-09 01:57 PM, #204
RE: Eh.,
Zulghinlour,
16-Jun-09 02:05 PM, #205
Just a thought from a player perspective,
Mek (Guest),
16-Jun-09 02:29 PM, #207
What Mekantos said. nt,
SomeDude (Guest),
16-Jun-09 03:01 PM, #208
Agreed,
Habbs,
17-Jun-09 09:38 PM, #210
Please...,
Forsakenz (Guest),
16-Jun-09 02:29 PM, #206
One thing that would definitely help,
Mek (Guest),
15-Jun-09 02:49 PM, #201
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Eskelian,
13-Jun-09 12:06 PM, #198
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Eskelian-lazy (Guest),
24-Jun-09 02:50 PM, #211
Sir - Some concise thoughts from a no-OOC cheat ring ex...,
Humbert,
13-Jun-09 10:34 AM, #197
I really good suggestion!,
Arrna (Guest),
13-Jun-09 10:07 PM, #199
I agree you old woman!,
Humbet (Guest),
14-Jun-09 12:12 PM, #200
My Idea: Making Mages Viable.,
Iza,
12-Jun-09 06:23 PM, #190
This is actually a really good idea with a few changes.,
Vet (Guest),
12-Jun-09 06:49 PM, #191
Though your missing a vital point...,
Arrna (Guest),
12-Jun-09 08:19 PM, #192
RE: My Idea: Making Mages Viable.,
Daevryn,
12-Jun-09 07:25 PM, #193
But...,
Iza,
13-Jun-09 10:34 AM, #196
Why not just keep it like it was with a few changes?,
Vet (Guest),
11-Jun-09 07:44 PM, #187
Do away with the massive -regen on damredux.,
VargLazy (Guest),
11-Jun-09 07:44 PM, #185
Idea: Something for everyone,
Artificial,
11-Jun-09 09:37 AM, #179
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Isildur,
11-Jun-09 09:37 AM, #178
The problem I have with cool down timers,
Dragomir,
11-Jun-09 07:44 PM, #184
RE: The problem I have with cool down timers,
Isildur,
12-Jun-09 03:14 PM, #189
Problem,
Mek (Guest),
11-Jun-09 07:44 PM, #186
But now they are #### more anyway, so why to bother? n/...,
Dervish,
12-Jun-09 09:45 AM, #188
Another Suggestion, Way different than current txt,
SomeDude (Guest),
10-Jun-09 02:16 PM, #170
For the record....,
Daevryn,
10-Jun-09 02:36 PM, #171
Fine. Just throwing out ideas! nt,
Larcat,
10-Jun-09 02:37 PM, #172
Do away with sleeks.,
KennyPowers (Guest),
10-Jun-09 01:24 PM, #160
Zulgh, man.,
Dallevian,
10-Jun-09 11:37 AM, #157
RE: Zulgh, man.,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 11:41 AM, #158
I have, yo.,
Dal Forsaken (Guest),
10-Jun-09 01:48 PM, #168
RE: I have, yo.,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 09:04 PM, #173
But you're open to it?,
Forsakenz (Guest),
11-Jun-09 09:37 AM, #177
Other reasons I like my idea.,
Forsakenz (Guest),
10-Jun-09 02:16 PM, #169
RE: Other reasons I like my idea.,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 09:09 PM, #174
Suggestion for a system.,
SomeDude (Guest),
09-Jun-09 10:17 PM, #151
You stole my idea.... which I stole from Rade. Totally ...,
Java,
09-Jun-09 10:51 PM, #155
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread. Good idea! nt,
SomeDude (Guest),
10-Jun-09 11:37 AM, #156
RE: Suggestion for a system.,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 11:43 AM, #159
RE: Suggestion for a system.,
Tac,
10-Jun-09 01:24 PM, #161
Specific answers.,
SomeDude (Guest),
10-Jun-09 01:24 PM, #162
RE: Specific answers.,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 01:36 PM, #165
Devil's Advocate...,
Tac,
10-Jun-09 01:48 PM, #167
RE: Devil's Advocate...,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 09:12 PM, #175
RE: Devil's Advocate...,
Java,
11-Jun-09 09:37 AM, #182
Isn't the idea to NOT have "difficult" and "easy" locat...,
Java,
11-Jun-09 09:37 AM, #180
RE: Specific answers.,
Dervish,
12-Jun-09 08:19 PM, #194
RE: Specific answers.,
Daevryn,
12-Jun-09 08:45 PM, #195
An alternate form of the same basic idea.,
SomeDude (Guest),
10-Jun-09 01:24 PM, #163
Another note....,
SomeDude (Guest),
10-Jun-09 01:24 PM, #164
RE: Suggestion for a system.,
Java,
11-Jun-09 09:37 AM, #181
I think plain and simple it should be like this.,
Vet (Guest),
02-Jun-09 02:21 PM, #146
RE: I think plain and simple it should be like this.,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 01:38 PM, #166
Challenge system on top of exploration idea,
Grudan,
01-Jun-09 10:27 AM, #140
RE: Challenge system on top of exploration idea,
Zulghinlour,
10-Jun-09 09:17 PM, #176
RE: Challenge system on top of exploration idea,
Grudan - Guest (Guest),
11-Jun-09 09:37 AM, #183
New system suggestion,
Exit,
01-Jun-09 02:30 AM, #134
RE: New system suggestion,
Exit,
01-Jun-09 08:10 AM, #136
RE: New system suggestion,
Daevryn,
01-Jun-09 08:25 AM, #139
RE: New system suggestion,
Exitguest (Guest),
01-Jun-09 06:55 PM, #143
Just one thing from your post here...,
SomeDude (Guest),
09-Jun-09 10:17 PM, #152
If you read what Zulg has been saying....,
Arrna (Guest),
01-Jun-09 08:10 AM, #138
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Rade_ (Guest),
01-Jun-09 12:30 AM, #133
I like the second part of this..,
Java,
01-Jun-09 08:10 AM, #135
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Straklaw,
01-Jun-09 08:10 AM, #137
There's only one check per location. So you go there, a...,
Java,
01-Jun-09 04:13 PM, #141
I'm refererring to new characters, not the same one.,
Straklaw,
02-Jun-09 10:02 AM, #145
Which isn't any better in the current system..,
Java,
02-Jun-09 07:18 PM, #148
RE: I'm refererring to new characters, not the same one...,
Rade_ (Guest),
04-Jun-09 03:11 PM, #149
I think, if it was done right....,
Tac,
04-Jun-09 11:27 PM, #150
Too exploitable,
Valkenar,
09-Jun-09 10:17 PM, #153
So you wouldn't try getting them at lvl 30 or so?,
Java,
09-Jun-09 10:51 PM, #154
Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 04:59 PM, #95
Will RC rewarded shield remain the same?,
RC winner (Guest),
28-May-09 06:28 PM, #96
Likely, yes (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 07:13 PM, #103
Things I'd like to ask/tweak,
Guy (Guest),
28-May-09 06:28 PM, #97
RE: Things I'd like to ask/tweak,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 07:17 PM, #104
YES PLEASE MASSA! I really like this.~,
Treebeard1 (Guest),
28-May-09 06:28 PM, #98
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Dervish,
28-May-09 06:28 PM, #99
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 07:22 PM, #105
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Dervish,
28-May-09 11:02 PM, #113
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 11:04 PM, #114
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Dervish,
28-May-09 11:27 PM, #115
I know you're bending over backward here.,
Scrimbul,
30-May-09 10:52 AM, #123
RE: I know you're bending over backward here.,
Zulghinlour,
30-May-09 07:23 PM, #128
Some feedback,
Mek (Guest),
28-May-09 06:28 PM, #100
RE: Some feedback,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 07:25 PM, #106
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Isildur,
28-May-09 07:02 PM, #101
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 07:30 PM, #108
that sounds pretty do-able,
Aodh,
28-May-09 07:07 PM, #102
RE: that sounds pretty do-able,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 07:31 PM, #109
I LOVE YOU. nt,
Lye (Guest),
28-May-09 07:37 PM, #110
Just curious,
Torak_guest (Guest),
28-May-09 08:52 PM, #111
RE: Just curious,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 08:53 PM, #112
Concerns within.,
Splntrd,
29-May-09 01:09 AM, #116
RE: Concerns within.,
Zulghinlour,
29-May-09 01:11 AM, #117
Love this idea.,
Zephon,
29-May-09 08:49 PM, #118
I like this idea.,
Koe (Guest),
29-May-09 11:35 PM, #119
RE: Zulg's thoughts, hashed out with a few other IMPS,
DurNominator,
30-May-09 10:52 AM, #120
I am on board with this 100%...,
_Magus_,
30-May-09 10:52 AM, #122
RE: I am on board with this 100%...,
Zulghinlour,
30-May-09 07:16 PM, #126
So when-ish are you expecting this to go in?,
anon_ (Guest),
30-May-09 06:12 PM, #124
I currently have no timeline (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
30-May-09 07:14 PM, #125
RE: So when-ish are you expecting this to go in?,
Daevryn,
31-May-09 11:47 AM, #131
One quick question...,
Dragomir,
31-May-09 01:01 AM, #129
RE: One quick question...,
Zulghinlour,
31-May-09 01:02 AM, #130
Like it. ~,
Abernytee (Guest),
31-May-09 05:36 PM, #132
Small detect artifact adjustment for Outlanders.,
ibuki,
02-Jun-09 02:42 AM, #144
more drawback ideas,
Laxminator (Guest),
02-Jun-09 07:18 PM, #147
If anyone's been keeping score....,
Daevryn,
16-Jun-09 01:41 PM, #202
Supplemental idea.,
Forsakenz (Guest),
28-May-09 02:39 PM, #92
RE: Supplemental idea.,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 04:54 PM, #94
More wand locatons pop based on hours.,
Ayalah (Guest),
28-May-09 10:20 AM, #80
What about something closer to the Thief ingredient sys...,
Yhorian (Guest),
28-May-09 10:20 AM, #79
I like this idea if...,
Forsakenz (Guest),
28-May-09 01:45 PM, #91
No huge change needed.,
Pissudin (Guest),
28-May-09 10:20 AM, #77
RE: No huge change needed.,
Daevryn,
28-May-09 10:46 AM, #83
Yup, i know...,
Pissudin (Guest),
28-May-09 12:08 PM, #87
I agree with this.,
Cerunnir,
28-May-09 11:21 AM, #85
RE: I agree with this.,
Isildur,
28-May-09 12:50 PM, #88
RE: No huge change needed.,
Isildur,
28-May-09 12:50 PM, #89
Use the guildmaster (sorry if this is a repeat),
Abernytee (Guest),
28-May-09 10:20 AM, #76
RE: Use the guildmaster (sorry if this is a repeat),
Zulghinlour,
30-May-09 07:17 PM, #127
One crazy idea that is not so crazy actually,
Dwoggurd,
27-May-09 11:13 PM, #70
This isn't even worth a response (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 11:19 PM, #74
ROFL! I LOVE this idea. n/t,
ROFL (Guest),
01-Jun-09 06:55 PM, #142
Tricky question this.,
Istirith01 (Guest),
27-May-09 09:29 PM, #65
RE: Tricky question this.,
Daevryn,
27-May-09 09:55 PM, #68
Quick aside, four path invoker is very viable.,
TMNS (Guest),
27-May-09 11:13 PM, #72
RE: Quick aside, four path invoker is very viable.,
Istirith01 (Guest),
27-May-09 11:41 PM, #75
RE: Fair enough.,
Istirith01 (Guest),
27-May-09 11:41 PM, #73
Is this too stupidly simple?,
Puppet (Guest),
27-May-09 08:34 PM, #60
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Theerkla,
27-May-09 08:13 PM, #57
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 08:16 PM, #58
a re-adjusting,
laxicus (Guest),
27-May-09 07:52 PM, #55
RE: a re-adjusting,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 08:43 PM, #62
RE: a re-adjusting,
Krysantur (Guest),
27-May-09 10:02 PM, #69
Aura/SHield/Barrier,
Lightmaged (Guest),
27-May-09 06:48 PM, #50
RE: Aura/SHield/Barrier,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 07:21 PM, #54
RE: Aura/SHield/Barrier,
Lightmaged (Guest),
27-May-09 09:29 PM, #64
Re,
Dwoggurd,
27-May-09 09:29 PM, #66
Goals,
Valkenar,
27-May-09 04:12 PM, #44
my idea:,
Isildur,
27-May-09 04:12 PM, #43
RE: my idea:,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 07:47 PM #56
RE: my idea:,
Isildur,
27-May-09 08:54 PM, #63
RE: my idea:,
Daevryn,
27-May-09 09:26 PM, #67
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Valkenar,
27-May-09 03:12 PM, #42
Give limited versions of the protection spells to mages,
Jagaub,
27-May-09 01:57 PM, #41
RE: Give limited versions of the protection spells to m...,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 04:44 PM, #49
Give mages another protection spell, reduce power of th...,
Jagaub,
27-May-09 01:57 PM, #40
I'd be more inclined...,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 04:42 PM, #48
To keep it simple.,
The Heretic,
27-May-09 01:09 PM, #38
RE: To keep it simple.,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 04:28 PM, #47
I agree,
The Heretic,
27-May-09 06:48 PM, #51
RE: I agree,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 06:50 PM, #52
RE: I agree,
The Heretic,
28-May-09 11:21 AM, #84
Retooling ABS,
Yhorian (Guest),
26-May-09 07:57 PM, #34
Good idea! I'll give more input when at home. n/t,
Arrna (Guest),
27-May-09 12:30 PM, #37
RE: Retooling ABS,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 07:00 PM, #53
Slight alteration then...,
Yhorian (Guest),
27-May-09 08:34 PM, #59
RE: Slight alteration then...,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 08:38 PM, #61
Because you said that a big complaint was finding barri...,
Yhorian (Guest),
28-May-09 10:20 AM, #78
Ah crap...I accidently deleted the three responses queu...,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 05:11 PM, #32
Don't change a thing. Ever again. st,
Conservative (Guest),
26-May-09 03:42 PM, #31
RE: Don't change a thing. Ever again. st,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 04:27 PM, #46
Another Idea,
EXB_ (Guest),
26-May-09 01:13 PM, #18
RE: Another Idea,
Daevryn,
26-May-09 01:17 PM, #20
RE: Another Idea,
Isildur,
26-May-09 03:29 PM, #24
RE: EXPLORATION,
A2,
27-May-09 12:08 PM, #36
RE: EXPLORATION,
Daevryn,
27-May-09 01:38 PM, #39
Sometimes you confuse me...,
EXB,
26-May-09 03:29 PM, #25
Just to log it here,
Dwoggurd,
26-May-09 12:13 PM, #9
RE: Just to log it here,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 12:47 PM, #13
Elaborating...,
Dwoggurd,
26-May-09 02:13 PM, #21
RE: Elaborating...,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 02:40 PM, #22
Well,
Dwoggurd,
26-May-09 03:42 PM, #30
RE: Well,
Graatchman (Guest),
26-May-09 06:14 PM, #33
RE: Well,
Zulghinlour,
27-May-09 04:25 PM, #45
Re,
Dwoggurd,
27-May-09 11:13 PM, #71
Here's the solution:,
Balrahd. (Guest),
26-May-09 12:13 PM, #8
I'm not Zulg, but this is a really bad idea,
Dwoggurd,
26-May-09 12:52 PM, #12
Why does that make it a bad idea?,
Balrahd. (Guest),
26-May-09 01:11 PM, #17
RE: Why does that make it a bad idea?,
Daevryn,
26-May-09 01:15 PM, #19
Admittedly,
Balrahd. (Guest),
26-May-09 03:29 PM, #26
Its a Terrible thing.,
Terrible (Guest),
26-May-09 03:29 PM, #29
RE: Here's the solution:,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 01:03 PM, #16
RE: Here's the solution:,
Isildur,
26-May-09 07:57 PM, #35
Hints,
Aodh,
26-May-09 12:13 PM, #7
RE: Hints,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 12:52 PM, #14
My (slightly refined) idea.,
Forsakenz (Guest),
26-May-09 10:50 AM, #4
RE: My (slightly refined) idea.,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 02:45 PM, #23
RE: My (slightly refined) idea.,
Daevryn,
26-May-09 03:24 PM, #28
No.,
Lye (Guest),
28-May-09 07:32 PM, #107
Don't DELETE me again!,
Forsakenz (Guest),
28-May-09 12:08 PM, #86
Stackable DR spell,
Tac,
26-May-09 10:50 AM, #3
RE: Stackable DR spell,
Daevryn,
26-May-09 10:55 AM, #6
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Danis (Guest),
26-May-09 10:50 AM, #2
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 12:17 PM, #11
RE: Aura/Shield/Barrier...suggest a new system,
Danis (Guest),
26-May-09 03:29 PM, #27
Not precisely a new system, but one idea I read and lik...,
EXB_ (Guest),
26-May-09 10:50 AM, #1
RE: Not precisely a new system, but one idea I read and...,
Daevryn,
26-May-09 10:51 AM, #5
Honestly,
Guy (Guest),
28-May-09 10:20 AM, #81
Further fleshing out,
Guy (Guest),
28-May-09 01:45 PM, #90
Rewarding long-lived characters,
Zulghinlour,
26-May-09 12:09 PM, #10
However,
EXB_ (Guest),
26-May-09 12:56 PM, #15
RE: Rewarding long-lived characters,
Ayalah (Guest),
28-May-09 10:20 AM, #82
RE: Rewarding long-lived characters,
Zulghinlour,
28-May-09 02:49 PM, #93
Tie it to exp/obs xp. nt,
DurNominator,
30-May-09 10:52 AM, #121
| |
|